Ty Webb;555208 wrote:Do you even understand what I'm saying LJ? Do I need to say it slower

Please say it slower.

Writerbuckeye;555284 wrote:Agreed. For the entertainment value, alone.

Wicked minds think alike, Writer! haha!

Holding up keeping the middle class tax cuts to force President Obama to keep tax cuts for their rich buddies is disgusting

No Ty, what is disgusting is the Democratic Party's dirty little secret that it expands it's power base by taking the middle class people and making them weak and dependent on government, and by extension, dependent on the Democratic Party.

As told to me about 20 years ago by a former Democratic committee man who had bolted the party....
Republicans try to enable an enterprising, common person and make them wealthy and independent and hence loyal to the Republican Party.
Democrats try to trap a feeble common man into a reliance on government and hence loyal to the Democratic Party.
You can see it in everything they do, legislate and propose.

Tell me...which do you want to be a party to?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022638-503544.html

President Obama continued to emphasize that he was NOT backing off on his attempt to increase taxes on high earners. He said it would be 'fiscally irresponsible'....apparently not grasping the concept of 'fiscal irresponsibility' of ramming expensive entitlement programs thru congress at a time of huge deficits. Quick to seize his mandate for his 'hope and change' when elected...the prez seems a bit tardy to grasp his agenda's repudiation at the midterms.

I Wear Pants;555092 wrote:Can't be done with anyone in office or that will be in office. ...

Then I'll continue to wait. We'll either learn or go bankrupt

I Wear Pants;555092 wrote:...If we could balance the budget with cuts and some tax increases I'd be for it as long as it was stipulated that there would be tax decreases every year to coincide with further spending cuts. ...

I do not have such willingness

I Wear Pants;555092 wrote:...And as far as only wanting fiscal irresponsibility for short periods of time with massive military expenses, what does that mean about long wars with vaguely defined victory paremeters that have nothing to do with our survival as a country?

Firstly...I never said I "wanted" fiscal irresponsibility.

Secondly, I have no idea what it means. I'm not sure what the question is there.


I would not support the funding of a long war with vaguely defined parameters that have nothing to do with our survival as a country...but I have a funny feeling you and I might disagree when a parameter would or would not be vague or what might constitute as being paramount to our survival.

BoatShoes;553979 wrote: In essence, what I'm saying is...why not increase taxes to make the budget balanced to match current expenditures....especially considering everybody has claimed that they will cut spending but his has never, ever happened....and then, from that balanced budget....reduce....down the expenditures and tax rate concurrently.

Sure, even if we accept that much of federal government outlaways are wasteful....and we'd definitely like to keep more of our money.....I don't see how it helps to continue adding on more debt while we wait for these programs that we don't like to disappear.

Regardless of the tax rate, it is impossible to take in enough tax revenue to pay for our current expenses. The federal government would need to bring in what, around $4 trillion this year in revenue to balance the budget, which is right around 27% of the GDP. Over the past 60 some years, the average tax revenue was between 16-19% of GDP and was never above 21%, even when the evil top bracket was paying 91% of their income in taxes. People will hide their money or stop being productive with their money when the rate gets high enough. There is nothing they can do short of confiscating our money to collect enough to pay for their budget.

Cleveland Buck;555871 wrote:Over the past 60 some years, the average tax revenue was between 16-19% of GDP and was never above 21%

Yep, been right around 19-20% for years. Very few in Washington understand economics, and this administration is particularly inept at it. All just a giant shell game. In all honesty, they ARE trying to inflate their way out of this mess, but the deflationary forces are so strong that they are unable to do it.

HitsRus;555318 wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022638-503544.htmlPresident Obama continued to emphasize that he was NOT backing off on his attempt to increase taxes on high earners. He said it would be 'fiscally irresponsible'....apparently not grasping the concept of 'fiscal irresponsibility' of ramming expensive entitlement programs thru congress at a time of huge deficits. Quick to seize his mandate for his 'hope and change' when elected...the prez seems a bit tardy to grasp his agenda's repudiation at the midterms.

Oh....and let us not forget BHO's emergency $870 Billion Patronage Porkulus Sammich that he along with Princess Pelosi and Dingy Harry insisted would stimulate the floundering economy by providing hundreds of thousands of "shovel-ready" jobs so the unemployment rate would not pass 8%....9%...no wait....10%.

Two years later I'm still waiting to be stimulated.

But you have a valid point. This economy - coupled with BHO's recent humbling eye-opening trip to the G-20 and the incredibly rapid fall from near-Super Majority status in DC by his own party - has to have given the Anointed One a painfully massive lesson in world economics...right?

We cannot legislate and tax & spend our way out of economic issues. The best thing the Feds can to do to encourage a turnaround and boost tax revenues is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

Ty Webb;555198 wrote:I do work a real job jmog,I do have taxes taken out,so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about

I don't think I said that you don't have a real job, read what I said again.

derek bomar;553523 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html

and the deficit continues to grow...

And it will continue to grow whether the tax cuts expire or not. The deficit could be reduced if the government scaled back its spending.

KnightRyder;553632 wrote:you mean the same tax cuts that didnt create a single job?

Proof of your claim?

HitsRus;555306 wrote:No Ty, what is disgusting is the Democratic Party's dirty little secret that it expands it's power base by taking the middle class people and making them weak and dependent on government, and by extension, dependent on the Democratic Party.

As told to me about 20 years ago by a former Democratic committee man who had bolted the party....
Republicans try to enable an enterprising, common person and make them wealthy and independent and hence loyal to the Republican Party.
Democrats try to trap a feeble common man into a reliance on government and hence loyal to the Democratic Party.
You can see it in everything they do, legislate and propose.

Tell me...which do you want to be a party to?

To go along with this...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

I read this while in a Politcal Science class my sophomore year in college. Interesting that when you take both quotes - HitsRus and the one above - you begin to see a common theme...

I wonder where people think we are according to this cycle.

cruiser_96;558445 wrote:To go along with this...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

I read this while in a Politcal Science class my sophomore year in college. Interesting that when you take both quotes - HitsRus and the one above - you begin to see a common theme...

I wonder where people think we are according to this cycle.

I would say we are between apathy and dependence...and we are definitely heading towards dependence.

jmog;558700 wrote:I would say we are between apathy and dependence...and we are definitely heading towards dependence.

Agreed.

So any Democrat wants to be/is dependent on the government??

Jesus,what the hell is wrong with you guys?

Ty Webb;559589 wrote:So any Democrat wants to be/is dependent on the government??

Jesus,what the hell is wrong with you guys?

No, but there is a certain breed of democrats, that has become fashionable, that looks to the government first and foremost for everything.
This is the same breed of dems who thinks every job is Matewan and needs a union.
This is the same breed that has spawned "The Berkley Crowd".
The same breed who calls everybody "else" racist bigots.
The breed that thinks that nobody else has thoughts of their own, and refers to those people as "people who watch too much FOX news".
The breed that has tucked their ankles behind their ears before the alter of PC.
The breed that wants to legislate a favorable outcome for every hurt feeling in the world.
The same breed of folks who looks at Obamacare as "A Win" for political ideology, instead of a disastrous mammoth clusterf*ck that only benefits an agenda, setting a precedent for further aims down the path to an even more socialized government.

You get the picture.

CenterBHSFan;559616 wrote:You get the picture.

No...he won't.

CenterBHSFan;559616 wrote:No, but there is a certain breed of democrats, that has become fashionable, that looks to the government first and foremost for everything.
This is the same breed of dems who thinks every job is Matewan and needs a union.
This is the same breed that has spawned "The Berkley Crowd".
The same breed who calls everybody "else" racist bigots.
The breed that thinks that nobody else has thoughts of their own, and refers to those people as "people who watch too much FOX news".
The breed that has tucked their ankles behind their ears before the alter of PC.
The breed that wants to legislate a favorable outcome for every hurt feeling in the world.
The same breed of folks who looks at Obamacare as "A Win" for political ideology, instead of a disastrous mammoth clusterf*ck that only benefits an agenda, setting a precedent for further aims down the path to an even more socialized government.

You get the picture.

Very well stated. Have a beer

If you really think HCR is a clusterfuck...I fell bad for you

Ty Webb;559744 wrote:If you really think HCR is a clusterfuck...I fell bad for you

So did my dude

Ty Webb;559744 wrote:If you really think HCR is a clusterfuck...I fell bad for you

Seriously though. If even the same people who were mega-whoring this bill to get it passed didn't understand it, what does that say to you?
It was/is such a massive piece of garbage, they didn't WANT to take the time and try to understand it themselves.... CAUSE THEY KNEW WHAT IT WAS!!!

^^^C'mon Center....If there's anyone on here who understands douche's it might be you!

[video=youtube;AzSJVVVTIsc][/video]

I don't think that all of the tax cuts should be extended. I think it's reasonable to extend them for those making less than say $1 million dollars a year. It keeps the cuts for those who need it (average person, most small business owners). But also saves us from adding more to the deficit that isn't going to help us (the "companies need these to start hiring" line doesn't work on me because it doesn't explain why there wasn't job growth in the near decade that the tax cuts have already existed).

As far as the specific HCR bill. I don't think it's very good. I think something like it needs to be done but it needs to be done much, much better. Things like tort reform and opening up state lines are an important part of the puzzle. I like parts of it, not being able to be denied for pre-existing coverage and extending the umbrella for people on their parents plan, but even those good things don't save it from being a stinker overall.

CenterBHSFan;559785 wrote:So did my dude

Well played.

Believer, I struggle to keep "hope" alive lol

But also saves us from adding more to the deficit that isn't going to help us

The problem is what is the real deficit is after you take a way the new spending proposals and trim fat elsewhere. If you don't have the money, you shouldn't be adding to the problem by legislating/attempting to legslate a social agenda. It's a little duplicious to to add to the deficit then claim you need to raise taxes...on ANYBODY...because the deficit is big.